you stated when you reverted my edit that'the authorship may be disputed, but not the fact that it is a Sikh-text'but if the texts were not written by guru Gobind Singh the supposed author in question then it cannot be considered a sikh text as it was written by some rando and not the Sikh Guru Dopplegangman (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan Happy new year and best wishes...Thanks for correcting my mistake for [1]I - I missed that the google books cited skipped page 22 and went straight to page 24 after page 21! Also, its interesting you mentioned "Hindu-traditions also don't derive their "core teachings and beliefs" from the Vedas, but just "play lip service" to their authority," - I also read something similar recently in a reading I was doing, but that was for many Hindus in general now-a-days, not for the Hindu-traditions/schools of thoughts. Also, seems Michaels says something similar "Most Indians today merely pay lip service...". My change there was just to add clarity to the sentence that Buddhism, Jainism didn't consider vedas as authorities. Asteramellus (talk) 00:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Four stages of awakening page - reversion of edits
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thank you for your feedback on my edits on the Four stages of awakening page! I agree with some of your points, but if you could help me better understand your reversions, I’d really appreciate it. Learning from them would definitely help me become a better editor.
Regarding undisputed information:
I agree with your point that the information under Origins is common knowledge based on its original sources. I felt that including a specific citation could be helpful in accompanying the example introduced of the Visuddhimagga, but I agree with you nonetheless. Thank you for pointing this out.
Under Stream-enterer, however, I still feel that a citation would be helpful since the first paragraph seems to include two quotations—“one who enters (āpadyate) the stream (sotas),” and “opened the eye of the Dharma.” How can we consider that a reference is provided for this when there is no citation?
Regarding distorted meaning:
In my edits, I tried to cut down on repeated words that do not hinder the meaning of the passages. For example, in Line 2, I changed, “The four stages of awakening in Early Buddhism and Theravada are fourprogressivestages…” to “The four stages of awakening in Early Buddhism and Theravada are progressive…” I felt this was more concise and improved the flow when reading. There are a few such edits, but I am unsure how they are distorting meaning as I've retained the key information.
Moreover, I understand that I removed the third paragraph under the Origins heading which I felt didn’t add to the main idea of the heading/page. The paragraph before it succinctly describes the relevance of the Visuddhimagga, so I felt this additional detail about the treatise was not entirely relevant.
Finally, I felt that splitting the paragraphs under the Path and Fruit heading would be ideal since it was originally quite long.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
i noticed the most recent edit made to the Sikhism page has taken down one of your edits of the disputation of the dasam and sarbloh granth removing the word disputed but keeping the source this seems like and unconstructive edit made by User:MaplesyrupSushi and i was wondering if you could change it back as i am not an auto confirmed user yet IAMTHETRUESTREPAIRMAN (talk) 19:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Joshua Jonathan. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi @Joshua Jonathan sorry to ping you here, but I saw on Hinduism page edits for the sub-sections heading changes - not sure if the intention is to keep "Hindu modernism" under "Vaidika dharma" - seems formatting mistake? Asteramellus (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are doing good. It's good to see that you contribute to the Ayodhya dispute page. I have made some recent edits about the 1885 petition to construct a temple and the verdict of its appeal by the Faizabad district court in 1886. Can you review my edits to verify if the sources mentioned are valid and if the wording of these edits is as per Wikipedia guidelines? Thank you. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Joshua Jonathan I noticed that on Hinduism page, References section layout is 2 columns and right side is not in "sync" with left side. I was wondering if you know why it is like that and best way to fix those extra spaces on left side. Is that formatting done manually? Asteramellus (talk) 13:30, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asteramellus: we can use either a number, e.g. "2," or define the width of the columns, e.g. "35em." Presently, the width is not defined; at my screen, I see three columns, so your two columns (and my three) is related to some preferences stored God-knows-where. If you like, try to define the number or width of the columns in the references-section; just see what happens. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!13:36, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ok...just tried looking futher - seems it "auto-changes" based on the width of our browser window. Depending on the width, it shows up as just single column listing of references (if browser width is small) or two (as in my case) or what you got - as three. You must have a bit larger browser width than me. But can't figure out why for me right side is "longer" than left side. And I thought I had messed up while removing the not used printed sources few days back. Asteramellus (talk) 14:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss your edits on the Vipassana Movement Talk page
"In the course of the last thirty or forty years a huge pseudo-historical literature has sprung up in India, the melancholy product of a subject people's inferiority complex. Industrious and intelligent men have wasted their time and their abilities in trying to prove that the ancient Hindus were superior to every other people in every activity of life. Thus, each time the West has announced a new scientific discovery, misguided scholars have ransacked Sanskrit literature to find a phrase that might be interpreted as a Hindu anticipation of it. A sentence of a dozen words, obscure even to the most accomplished Sanskrit scholars, is triumphantly quoted to prove that the ancient Hindus were familiar with the chemical constitution of water. Remarkable people, these old Hindus. They knew everything that we know or, indeed, are likely to discover, at any rate until India is a free country; but they were unfortunately too modest to state the fact baldly and in so many words. Such are the melancholy and futile occupations of intelligent men who have the misfortune to belong to a subject race. Free men would never dream of wasting their time and wit upon such vanities."
Hi, I'm trying to start a WP:3O on meditation. I think that makes more sense than an RFC since it's just you and me arguing. BTW, I don't understand why you put "arbitrary header #1" etc. on the talk page. Did my formatting offend you? Anyway, I hope I'm phrasing our disagreement neutrally and accurately. I'm going to hold off on listing it to make sure you agree with my characterizations. Cheers. DolyaIskrina (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thanks. I often tweak the indentations on talk pages for clearer demarcation of who said what. I worried I had done something untoward. DolyaIskrina (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Joshua, the reflist-talk usually includes not only the sources mentioned in a single editor's reply/comment, but also all the other sources mentioned in other editors' replies in that section. That's why the sources that were not mentioned by me, but by StarkReport, are also there. So ideally, it should be at the very bottom of the section. — Kaalakaa(talk)08:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What contradictory Afghanistan's Indus sites are just trading posts not important to the IVC sites India and Pakistan has if Afghanistan is included in the civilisation extended then why Daimabad in Maharashtra is not included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:E280:3D48:133:B5F2:E934:7277:2C18 (talk) 13:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan You have not responded on the talk page section which you were previously active on, and you simply removed the infobox without any discussion. What is the reason? If you have any further points comment, but you are refusing to discuss and bent on taking action Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh496: responded to what? Your message All right folks, adding it on the main page now. Hopefully no backlash.? I've discussed this through and through; if you go through the talkpage-thread again, it should be quite obvious to you that there is a strong opposition to add this infobox. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!16:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BlackOrchidd. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. BlackOrchidd (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adi Shankara. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
@DaxServer:Sarcasm is lost on some people. You need a minimum IQ to get it 😁
@Joshua Jonathan: re : "you don't have sufficient arguments to get it your way". I don't care about getting my way any more. I quit editing Wikipedia more than 10 years ago due to to the Orc invasion. Sometimes I see something in a page that can be improved I try to help. Most of the time there is some Orc reverting all edits without rhyme or reason. I try to reason with him. Most of the time in true Orc fashion he does not get it. Then I say to to him. Have it your way. I quit. PastaMonk20:44, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead and call the admins 😁 Do you think most people give a rat's ass about being able to edit Wikipedia ?? They don't care even if they I can't "view" Wikipedia. If they can't see Wikipedia they will view Britannica or some other site. Grow up dude 😁 BTW, I reverted your edits to my talk page. I extend a cordial invitation to start another edit war on my talk page 😁😁😁PastaMonk21:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RegentsPark and Kautilya3: the term is also used by the Ukrainians for their eastern neighbors; as the two of you will understand, I find the term thrrefor deeply insulting, given the brutal nature of the war there, the slaughter of civilians, the rapes, etc. But this is probably lost on our fellow editor... See also this comment.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!03:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if you are offended by the term. It was not aimed specifically at you, I used it as a general term to describe Wikipedia regulars (with millions of edits under their belt) who spend their time bullying newcomers and occasional editors. I kinda lost it when DaxServer pasted an edit war message on my talk page for doing just one revert. The page history shows that you have been reverting almost everyone's edits and you were on the verge of violating 3RR rule on 24Mar2024. In the end you agreed that the page about a person should have a top level biography section. That's what I been trying to tell you since the beginning 😁. All of this could have been avoided. Yes ? PastaMonk05:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Historical reliability of the Gospels. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. This warning goes to both users involved and it not a comment on who is right Jeppiz (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, sorry for getting us both a warning, I think we both could've handled it better. Honestly, I don't think my lack of sleep did me any favors either.
Secondly, I'm sorry for giving you a negative impression of me. I know we've come across each other a few times lately and I can understand why you may think I may be pushing a particular POV, or being "sneaky" (you have a funny way of saying it lol), granting that I do indeed tend to publish edits related to specific worldviews. This is because I have been deeply studying conservative/traditional views (from the bible to metaphysics) recently, and I have been adding information to Wikipedia based on the content I've found that would be handy for the encyclopedia. Its nothing personal, I'm just uploading stuff I've found that would be appropriate for the site (granting that I also learn how to use it properly which leads to my next point).
I have autism! If I ever get round to making userboxes its something I'm sure to point out. I don't know if that's the cause of it, but I've always had a problem with re-writing things in my own words (especially under expectations such as guidelines), so I just politely ask that you be mindful that whatever I write, I may just be writing poorly.
In regards to the edits that caused this situation, I should've been more specific in my reasoning for cutting things out, and for adding more than I needed to (I think I misread the Mitchell source because of my lack of sleep but not to excuse it). But the section on the Historical Reliability of the Gospels page definitely needed to be reorganized given that one Litwa citation was completely apart from the rest of the authors that talked about genre in one condensed section.
I'm not trying to downplay any actions that may have caused you a negative impression of me, and I look forward to writing better edits and hopefully representing different views that I read upon. I also hope, as a fellow Wikipedian, that we can settle our differences, respect each other, and get along. Thanks.
Also sorry for the textwall, I only remembered after typing all this that it might be against the guidelines or something. Divus303 (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Divus303: regarding autism: that's completely fine with me! I have a lot of sympathy for, and interest in, people who are in 'the spectrum': highly gifted/ADHD/autism. Many of the 'weirdo's' and unadapted are in the spectrum, and a lot of them are also creative and think 'differently'. For my work, I also use things like the triskele globe. Or the hoberman sphere; I guess you'll understand why. I'll take a fresh look at our disputes later; right now I need the oxygen to keep breathing. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!13:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with fidget toys (as we call them), had them in my classes years ago actually. I hope you're doing okay pal, get well! :) Divus303 (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you are a non hindu. why do you care if I edit the Kamakshi Amman Temple page. My edit has made nothing messier, but more informative. I a hindu am editing a hindu page to make it more informative for my fellow hindus. Why do you, a non Hindu care about it. Carnaticnerd (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Carnaticnerd: if you want to edit Wikipedia, you have to comply to our rules and guidelines. If you think you can edit just the way you like, you're at the wrong place. And if you think that non-Hindus shouldn't edit Hinduism-related pages, you're definitely at the wrong venue. @Doug Weller:WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!16:07, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am at the right venue. Articles about hindu institutions should be edited by hindus for themselves. You westerners destroyed our nation and now you wish to control information about our institutions. Wikipedia might be a secular place, however it is extremely biased. And please state how my edits made the page messier. I would like to discuss Carnaticnerd (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
what carnaticnerd states is somewhat wrong. Non hindus have the right to edit hindu pages. But your argument is as weak as his. You should state why you feel his edits to be messier. P. S. N. Srikar (talk) 08:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When you first try to change the name of an article from a common name to an obscure name, and then copy the whole article to your preferred name, yeah, that's a mess. And when you subsequently keep on pushing your preferred edits while ignoring all warnings, then it's clear you don't understand how wikipedia works. Which is also a warning to you. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!09:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I heard quacking, but the duck was already dead. So sad. Thanks for the barnstar, haven't gotten one of those for years! Skyerise (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are you at all interested in Discordianism? Skyerise (talk) 02:37, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
@Skyerise: I already took a look; it's outside my reach. My range is actually quite simple to explain: when I was eightteen, I pondered the question "What is 'I'"? One day I realized "'I' does not exist," there's just 'emptiness'. That was great, but also bottomless scaring (eightteen, no mature ego). Since then, the question "If this 'I' is not what I am, then what am I?" haunts me. In Buddhism, and also some strands of Hinduism, I met this "emptiness" of mine, and felt recognition. So, my interest is basically in 'understanding, or recognizing, this emptiness. Which, by the way, is paired with compassion; after all, that may be even more important. Regardd, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!04:26, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I thought you'd recognize that in the following:
Nevertheless, the Principia Discordia contains a complex and subtle religious system, although this is often obscured by its chaotic structure. The theology of the Principia is perhaps best summarized in the symbol [...] The Sacred Chao [...] Taken as a whole, however, the Sacred Chao symbolizes the Discordian idea that both order and chaos are man-made concepts, and that to believe that either is more 'true' than the other is illusion. The Sacred Chao represents 'pure chaos', the metaphysical grounding of all that is, and a level beyond any distinction-making.[1]
I understand why you might seem suspicious of me. I’ve just reviewed all the archived discussions you guys had regarding the map, along with the many sockpuppets that popped up during that time… pretty wild for something as simple as a map. And the suspicions of me being a ‘sockpuppet’ is something I can ask an Admin with access to IP and detections to clear up real quick.
Nonetheless I came because I noticed the current map was a bit off on the westernmost tip, so I checked the Wikimedia image history and I gathered that the map is supposed to be based on the Joppen map… but the current map by Avantiputra7 has a tiny mistake, that it didn’t cover a small area which many previous Mauryan maps including the Joppen map did cover. I’m not asking for a map change like the people on the Maurya talk pages but rather point out a tiny mistake on the map. I hope this clears things out. (Discopleasant (talk) 14:47, 21 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Hey man. This is Mark Forman, a world's expert on Integral Theory and you removed a host of badly needed updates I put on the page. Every line was absolutely factual, and not everything is citable in a book or white paper - even though I linked several books and you removed them too. I brought the post up to date - here in reality - and you put it back fifteen years.
@Mforman30: regarding my revert diff: I studied Integral Theory for a couple of years after my graduation in the 90s, and concluded it's a bunch of eloquent bullshit, with Wilber deeply misunderstanding and misrepresenting both the theories and the traditions he's writing about. Obviously, I'm not the only one who drew that conclusion, but some tiny islands of support still seem to hold out.
Luckily, Wiki-policies are easier to follow. Like WP:RS and WP:VERIFIABILITY; we don't use YouTube videos as references, especially not if we have made them ourselves. Or WP:SPAM: we don't use Amazon-links to our own writings, also not when they are from 2010, nearly fifteen years ago (nice irony). Or the organizing entity (IEC) for the statement "Similar attendee credentials have been present at the very well-attended 2010, 2013, 2015, and 2022 U.S. Integral Theory Conferences" - WP:SPAM and WP:OR. And we don't use inline links, especially not in headers.
And, to bring you back into reality: "over 50 published books that utilize Integral in some pragmatic or practical domain" since 2000: that's an average of two per year. Not what I'd call "this deficit has been widely addressed." Or "Bruce Alderman [...] notes that Integral is now being taught in some form in about 12 different colleges and universities, and has been taken up by dozens of individual academics." Where did he say that? In which form is it being taught? At which universities? I'd state it differently: this only underscores the irrelevancy. And Zimmerman surely didn't write that "This reality overrides a previous, early period in the 2000s." For additional input: see Ken Wilber at Google Trends. The direction is clear.
PS: your book, A Guide to Integral Psychotherapy: Complexity, Integration, and Spirituality in Practice, State University of New York Press, has 141 citations at Google Scholar. That's pretty good; I've re-inserted it at the article. Pity, though, that you forgot R. Elliott Ingersoll and David M. Zeitler (2010), Integral Psychotherapy: Inside Out/Outside In, SUNY, and John Dupuy (2013), Integral Recovery: A Revolutionary Approach to the Treatment of Alcoholism and Addiction, SUNY, both also published in the SUNY series in Integral Theory, of which you must be aware; and Andre Marquis (2018), Integral Psychotherapy: A Unifying Approach, Routledge. So, basically, still WP:SPAM and a violation of WP:NPOV.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!05:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can clean up how I cite things, but having you as someone you thinks Integral is bs is terrible policy for overseeing the page. I at least know the facts, and what has happened from 2000 to 2024. So I will take another stab soon at updating the page with tighter citations and then you have to think hard about whether you should play gatekeeper as opposed to literally a PhD and a world's expert such as myself. Mforman30 (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Citing all the books is a hefty project, but yes of course I know many of them. I will put it in as many as seems feasible. Mforman30 (talk) 20:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and then you have to think hard about whether you should play gatekeeper as opposed to literally a PhD and a world's expert such as myself. - you need applause, yearning for validation? It sounds like you're showcasing that IT doesn't work: talking about ego-transcendence, stuck in self-aggrandising. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!20:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have begun the process of adding to the page with clear, factual additions and proper citations. Prepare for a lot of additions. If you try to block these sound, factual, properly-cited additions because you have a strong, negative bias against Integral Theory, I will find a way to adjudicate this with Wikipedia.
Here's a question: Do you have the honestly and integrity to stick with the facts as they are here in reality, or will you - simply out of prejudice and out of a power-drive - block these changes? This is up to you and the quality of your character.
P.S. I don't claim to be a flawless knower of all things, or all things Nordic. But feel free to go over my work and look for errors. You won't find a whole lot. Mforman30 (talk) 00:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anti-Brahminism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.
Could you please be more careful with the referencing? The article used sfn exclusively, and you keep adding sfnp references. And did you move a listed ref back into the article, or was that Forman? Skyerise (talk) 11:03, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I cannot find any evidence that Het Atman Project published by Sevire even exists. Please provide the ISBN, OCLC, or a link to establish what book you are citing. Skyerise (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: sfnp seems to have become the preferred format. What do you mean with "listed ref"? Inline ref? And no, I didn't put that back inline, come on. "Het Atman Project" is lying besides me at the table; isbn 90-6325-419-9. The English original of course is fine too, but I have the Dutch translation, which was the quickest way to source the statements.Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!11:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A user recently posted about WP:GAME and you decided to jump in the convo despite our conversation a while back regarding assuming good faith, afterwards I pointed out you did’t follow WP:GF back when you falsely accused me of being a sockpuppet for a discussion me and Avantaputra7 have been solving and started to peruse my edits ever since… Please assume good faith and refrain from making serial messages on my talk page like this or this since this behavior is starting to resemble WP:HOUND. (Discopleasant (talk) 06:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Joshua, I wanted to start a new talk for this topic. I’ve been working on this in order to turn it into an article. I’ve been meaning to make it look as impartial as possible and use reliable sources, mostly I believe the problem lies on how it’s presented. And knowing you’re an autopatrolled I also want your opinion on the draft… (Discopleasant (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Joshua Jonathan. I've done some research I want to add to the page called "Yajnavalkya." Specifically I have done some research about his story in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and the Taittiriya Upanishad but every time I make updates you seem to revert them. I have more content I want to add but I can't seem to get my first edits from 5/19/24 through.
If you have concerns, can we discuss them instead and pinpoint specific changes you don't prefer? I am fairly new to Wikipedia editing so I am more than happy to learn but a complete revert with minimal commentary doesn't seem to be very constructive feedback. As I keep making changes to that page, I'd love it if you can give me specific feedback on which changes you don't like and I can implement them accordingly but reverting everything doesn't seem to be supportive to the Wikipedia community. If you are a senior member of the community, I ought to think you can be a better mentor.
An editor recently made major changes to Eastern esotericism (mass removals) and changed the redirects Esoteric and Esotericism without fixing the literally hundreds of incoming links first, then changed the hatnotes of Western esotericism as well. I reverted them and left a message about why I did so on their talk page, but if you could also keep an eye on these articles and redirects, I'd appreciate it. Skyerise (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello sir, @Joshua Jonathan Can you please check couple of sources related to my additions in Pañcāla?
Here in [History of Kanauj pages-212, 213], 10th century source about my addition is cited. In footer of both pages it's mentioned that Panchala was one single country which was later partitioned leading towards change in capitals. This article is about One prepartitioned Panchal with details of Partitioned Panchala too. Also check [source pages- 3, 4] and tell me if it can be used as a citation or not.Varahmihira (talk) 19:12, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
hello yesheua jonathan. You have reverted my edits on kanchi kamakoti peetham on the basis that i removed sourced info and added unsourced info, but perhaps, you forgot to see the four citations which I have provided for my changes. also also actually actually, mr jonathan, I have not removed any sourced info. Periyavacharanam (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the date may seem legendary, and catering to western idea, to the right of the date 482 BCE, i have mentioned (disputed). One more question your lordship, do you consider white western acadamia supreme and reigning over indian acadamia. Periyavacharanam (talk) 06:51, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! Joshua! If my addition has been reverted regards adding Content on the Heart Sutra, then can you suggest How I can add it Properly. as I believe some would appreciate seeing the actual Sutra content and not just describing it or adding link to it , you may compare to the Chinese Wikipedia version of same Topic here. which they actually do have the actual texts of the Sutra ..in different languages even. https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%88%AC%E8%8B%A5%E6%B3%A2%E7%BE%85%E8%9C%9C%E5%A4%9A%E5%BF%83%E7%B6%93
Nevertheless Thank you for your time in helping me learn how to better contribute to the Wikipedia space which we are all enthusiastically working on ,Cheers
@Villkomoses: we simply don't put such large amounts of non-English text in our articles; if the Chinese Wikipedia does, maybe they have other policies. But for here, the only option is indeed an external link. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!12:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you reverted an edit, before I could add a source. I assure you, she is unmarried. What can be done now? I am two cookies away from it. -Polytope4D (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BAPS did not file the case and did not partake in the case. I have shared various links to the court case in which it is shown that the Nar Narayan diocese filed the case. Shastri Yagnapurushdas had passed before the case finalized and reached a verdict in 1951.
@Skyerise: I read the views-section, and the talkpage-threads, but it's unclear to me what I could contribute. I agree with your application of the word "spiritual"; is that still disputed? As an aside, I disagree with AH's take on perennialism: the 'essence' is not some common Godhead, but a common stance of non-attaching awareness and compassion. "Godhead" is metaphysics, an aid to detachment, not 'the' 'goal' itself. But that's an aside. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!03:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just reverted some more edits in Sikhism article after you've reverted some. Not quite sure if that's the last good version. Please review if possible. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 18:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lal bhargava 1996, pp. 44: "It is interesting to leam that the king left his palace to offer sacrifices also. The fact probably shows that Chandragupta was a Brahmanical Hindu at least for the greater part of his life, although he inclined towards Jainism during his last days, according to Jain authors" Jaybjayb (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either you pretend to be ignorant and oblivious to the things I say, or maybe I just overestimated your intelligence and impartiality. Or perhaps you are just a pretender with some motives of your own, or you think you are extremely smart and everyone else (especially me) is an idiot. Maybe it's all of the above.
I don't even blame you for being biased about certain things, as we are all human and not perfect. However, your double standards are baffling. I have also noticed that whenever something irks you, an IP or a random new account with deliberately broken English suddenly appears and deltes what irks you. If someone responds to them, you are always the first to counter it. Maybe i am overthinking this one but what do you do might be called POV pulling?
This is very confusing for me, and any conversation with you does not prove to be fruitful. You have a set mindset that cannot be changed, nor do I wish to be a lone warrior representing my side in this information warfare. The world's population is 7 billion, meaning there are 7 billion types of people, and I am not going to waste my energy arguing with highly motivated individuals. This is the last time I am bothering. Do what you wish. However, there will be severe pushbacks in the future when more people get involved in Wikipedia. For now, enjoy your 'POV pushing,' (in an already messed up free platform) which spans multiple South Asia-related topics. I am sorry but i am extremly frustrated and disspointed and would hope i never come accross you in any topic ever again. Ill avoid. You won. Jaybjayb (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expose what? I am already an open book, unlike you. You needed some exposing, and the way you always act whenever someone tries to criticize your edits is like a small, spoiled kid calling for their badass father (or maybe fathers) every time they feel uncomfortable. As I said, I am going to avoid you. So chill and relax! Jaybjayb (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t have to do general articles, you could still just focus on a specific area/topic. I imagine most people would stick to the area/region they’re interested in, it’s just about get people interested in each area/region Kowal2701 (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Doug Weller: no. Crucial info is unsourced ("The Renati Cholas, also known as the Renadu Cholas, a branch of Andhra Chodas who belong to the family of Sangam Tamil King Karikala Chola, ruled parts of present-day Andhra Pradesh between the 5th and 10th centuries CE."; "Historians refer to them as the Renati Cholas"); other info is not backed by the source ("They were independent mostly but mostly they were forced to suzerainty of the Pallavas."). Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!21:00, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am wpondering if you could help with some information regarding editors with alt accounts, there has been a editor that has started doing some large edits on some off the Buddhist pages that you would be aware of. Does a wiki editor have to declare when they have another account, if they do and they haven't done this what is the next step. Thankyou for your time Foristslow (talk) 07:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
editor.The editor in question has not verified their account and obviously they have vast experience with editing 8n comparison to time first joined. So if I want to get this investigated what do I do next.Thank you for your time Foristslow (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i think if they were going to be honest they would be transparent with a legitimate account. So what is the process to have 5his investigated. Thankyou Foristslow (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you think that there is nothing unusual about the account, that it is unlikely to be a Alt account and that it doesn't warrant investigation is that what you are saying. Do you think other experienced editors would concur with you. Foristslow (talk) 22:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just want to jump in real quick and say that I actually know Likes Thai Food personally. He's a very knowledgeable person when it comes to certain topics on Chinese Buddhism. That is why I personally encouraged him to join wikipedia even though he wasn't initially interested. And now that he did he is being treated in a rude manner by you. Please be more kind to new editors. Assume good will and so forth. Javier F.V.13:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, my problem was how does this editor have so much editing experience and gumption as a new account. Is this even allowed on this platform you are editing the same pages. Foristslow (talk) 22:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't have much experience, he's just a good writer. I showed him a few wikipedia editing things when he asked me, but generally, he's not doing anything particularly difficult, just adding sourced content. I'm not sure what else you want to confirm he's a different person? Also, I've been on wiki for over fifteen years making standard edits in specific Buddhist pages. Why would I make a sockpuppet account all of a sudden to edit more other wiki pages? It's not like our accounts are doing anything against the rules. Why would I go through the trouble of making a second account just to keep editing Buddhist wikipedia pages? Also, even though we've worked on a few pages together (again, what is wrong with this?), we are doing different projects. For example, July 30 I was working on Shandao (check the logs) while he was working on the Koan page.Javier F.V.12:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Foristslow, Javierfv1212, and Likes Thai Food: as far as I can tell, Likes Thai Food is a very knowledgeable editor, who's learning very well how to edit and argue. And, funny thing, I can see that Javier taught LTF; they both use<blockquote> instead of {{blockquote|, and both put their sources in the body of the article, instead of using the sfn-format. So, I'd say, drop it, Foristslow, and concencrate on editing and arguing on content. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!13:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked, appeal declined. Tingling in my hands, neuropathy. A bit unsteady, Parkinson's. Last chemo first painless, but started the tingling. Should be ok, it's the 4th round that knocked me out last time. Doug Wellertalk11:04, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Joshua Jonathan, this struck me a bit funny but an editor DeccanFlood had once accused me of being a "Muslim editor" and that I "support Islamic states", while you recently accused me of being a "Hindutva supporter" which, as you know, are at the extreme opposite ends. PadFoot (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at Michael Witzel shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war in which you are repeatedly re-inserting content. Please note that additional restrictions apply on WP:BLP articles, and be aware of WP:BLPRESTORE
Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jtbobwaysf: get a better grip on policies, will you? You misinterpreted WP:CRIT, and you also don't seem to understand what edit-warring is. You probably reverted my edits at Michael Witzel, but I can tell that a misplaced warning like this lowers the threshold to request sanctikns against you. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!07:38, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and thank you for removing vandalism from Indus Valley Civilisation. We appreciate this, but unfortunately your edit was not successful in restoring the article to its pre-vandalised state. For future reference, it is better to deal with vandalism by checking the article's page history to determine how it appeared before it was vandalised. You can then restore the whole article, or the relevant part of it, to an appropriate earlier version. If you simply delete the visible vandalism then any content removed or overwritten by the vandal is lost. See How to deal with vandalism for details. Thank you. - Sumanuil. (talk to me)06:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it will finish unless someone else continues, as it's moved to the DRN. Of course. if that is closed because no one else participates... Doug Wellertalk13:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnonMoos: hm, yes, you're right. Nevertheless, the usual pov-pushing for an Iranian homeland. Bart Ehrman put it nice: "Most people don't want to know what happened, they want to know what to believe." Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!19:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
would be happy to know what exactly the word India or Indian subcontinent has that makes this word political or unacceptable as for the place of birth of lord Buddha? As a Buddhist, I appreciate that you want to be constructive, but every source one looks into, one almost certainly finds the birth place of Buddha in india or Indian subcontinent (very ambiguous but it’s ok too), even ancient ones!
Please help me to comprehend how South Asia is best to capture what Buddha is! South Asia is a political term, almost never used in the past. Besides, many Indians see this word as too political, a way to steer clear of the name of India somehow.
furthermore, India was not in Asia but part of Gondwana and Australia. It clashed with Asia and Indian subcontinent has its own Indian plate.
so why would you like to insist to erase India in this? Should we start calling Indian Ocean, the “south Asian ocean”? Since apparently India is a taboo word for you!!!??? Divinemomentever (talk) 08:39, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Divinemomentever: it's very simple: there is WP:CONSENSUS at The Buddha to use "South Asia"; if you want to chnage it, you'll have to gain consensus to do so. Personally I don't mind to use "ancient India" there, but others have objected to it. And I disagree that "South Asia" is a political term: it is "(ancient) India" which has become political. But please, discuss this further at Talk:The Buddha#South Asia, not here - with arguments, not rhetorics. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!08:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man, the whole thing called argument is political! Don’t tell me replacing “ancient India” with South Asia is not political!!! What kind of science (if any, it’s the science of rhetoric) are you talking about?
Who decides about the consensus? Please don’t shift the subject of discussion. Should we change “Indian Ocean” to paradise ocean for political consensus? It is corrupting the history, man!
give me a reason why everyone says Buddha was from india or Indian subcontinent and the so-called consensus is suddenly different? The very fact that you want to change history in order to placate someone’s sensitivity is wrong. So Leonardo Da Vinci is not Italian. There was no Italy at that time. So he is south European! Well, Southern Europe apparently is a more neutral term. Please bring about some historical facts instead of calling for political consensus! Divinemomentever (talk) 08:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan I had a quick question. I was reading Sukha page and came across this section, where it mentions "Bodhi (1980)". I was going to add citation since there was no citation for that (Bodhi 1980 is already used on the page, which links to this). Was wondering if that website is considered good source to use. Asteramellus (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes thanks. I will add the citation. I was wondering if there is any alternate way to cite the book (including the page numbers) instead of using the website or you think using this website is fine? It actually does have lot of sources easily searchable. Asteramellus (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rig Veda uses the term Antigriha (अन्तिगृह) in hymn 10.95.4, as still a part of the extended family, where older people lived in ancient India, with an outwardly role. I guess it would not be entirely accurate to term the rishis, munis, and similar figures from the Rigvedic period as completely non-Vedic. Instead, describing them as 'outside or on the fringes of Brahmanical traditions' would be more appropriate. Many of them might very well have been former Vedic practitioners. Do let me know what you think. DangalOh (talk) 06:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think there was any group of non-Vedic Indo-Aryans waiting for the arrival of Vedic Indo-Aryans. There is a high probability that the "non-Vedic Indo-Aryans" were, or their forefathers were, former Vedic people. I believe we are overestimating the number of ascetics; no society can be built purely by wanderers and ascetics. One thing is clear: during Rigvedic times, those who left their homes for new adventures were fringe elements. I agree there’s no need to directly relate ascetic or sannyasi movements to the roots of any Brahmanical tradition; they might very well represent completely new ideas. The term itself isn’t entirely reflective. Whatever you deem fit, I will not argue. I just wanted to add a little nuance. Thank you. DangalOh (talk) 08:12, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just wanted to let you know that content you have written for 'Genesis creation narrative' has been deleted on grounds that it is part of a 'stealth POV pushing campaign' to have Wikipedia state that 'deity magic' is involved in the biblical texts (see recent edit). Even information about genre has been deleted. You are the only one who actually engaged with my arguments and tried to build consensus rather than just complain about evangelicals and delete content. Could you please review/evaluate the discussion? I would appreciate your advice for this situation in general too. I thought this was over but now I'm wondering if I have to request dispute resolution again. Thanks. Violoncello10104 (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello JJ, although it's been a fairly long time since we've interacted, this message is a friendly request that you take a peek at the article on Hindu University of America, which is presently undergoing an Article-for-Deletion discussion HERE. So far there have only been 4 contributors. I think it could benefit from broader attention. As you've been much more active than me on WP in recent years, I suspect you could much more easily discern the appropriate ways to ensure the discussion gets the level of attention that it needs (the appropriate and balanced ways to get more community attention; feel free to just go ahead and invite in an appropriate way). Many thanks for whatever you can do/suggest! Best Regards --Presearch (talk) 01:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have recently made an edit to the Hinduism page about Saura being a major denomination in the past. However, you have reverted my edit. Can you add something briefly in the lead section to indicate that Saura also used to be a major denomination? It can help any neutral reader who is not very aware of Hinduism know about this fact. I would appreciate that.
Secondly, soon, I intend to add a sentence in the etymology section of the same page about the fact that Vijayanagara kings referred to themselves as 'Sultans of the Hindu kingdom'. I would equally appreciate it if you could verify if my edit is as per Wikipedia guidelines and if not make the necessary corrections. Thank you.Bsskchaitanya (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bsskchaitanya; thanks for reaching out. The WP:LEAD summarizes the article; Saura is mentioned, twice without any explanation, or even a link, so there is no reason to add this to the lead.
Thanks for your response Joshua Jonathan. Regarding my first point, I agree with your clarification. However, regarding the mention of Vijayanagara kings in the etymology section perhaps you have not understood my point. In the etymology section, information is given to provide historical usage of the words Hind, and Hindu by various travelers, historians, social reformers etc. Even though 'Hindu' is an exonym this word gained currency among the native Indians gradually over centuries. In that context, when and how this world became popular in South India (or Deccan as per the chronicles/works of Delhi and Bahmani sultanates) is worthy to mention so it won't be coming under WP:UNDUE. Anyways, when I am free I will add the sentence with valid academic references and then we can see. Thanks for your input friend. Take care. Bsskchaitanya (talk) 09:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to see you more contribution on Bhagavad Gita, however it's sacred text for Vaishnavism and Vishnu devotee.
Please add Religious significance of Bhagavad Gita
Add sub article text with link.
The Upholder of Wiki is awarded to exceptional and distinguished contributors on Wikipedia.
If I could I would give you every award Wiki has. You showed up. You have persevered in dealing with me, and your edits are of the highest quality. I hope to be able to count on you in all my future endeavors. (And I love all your quotes on your name page.) Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, Jenhawk777, custom is to say "Thank you, much appreciated!", but in this case I'd say 'Undeserved, 'cause I was quite harsh on you, and still haven't answered your latest ping'. But, I'm impressed with the humbleness of awarding this barnstar, so, thank you, and I'll try to be of help when needed, but I won't promise it, since I can't be sure if I'll always be able to do so. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!04:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I noticed you reverted my edit on Maurya Empire despite that edit adding official name of Nanda-Mauryan War and removing unnecessary title.I hope you understood.Thanks Edasf (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Hello, just wanting an explanation on why jumping straight to Chan on the Bodhidharma page is acceptable given that you seem to have quite a understanding of history. There are two points the word and character is Chinese and not Indian so by reason denotes integration into Chinese culture, and the other is there is a complete neglect to reference the initial Chinese Buddhist's historical culture. The time foundation of south and north is still in dispute. ie hui-neng. I think that we are going to have to get mediation on this one to be fair if you and the others are going to dispute my edit on page. Thankyou Foristslow (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jonathan yes there is enough information to put the existence of Bodhidharma Under question due to the found qigong manuscript being discounted and called dubious by modern scholars. Buddhabhadra or Batuo for instance was attributed to being the Abbott of the temple trained in many indigenous arts that are well known to have developed in that geolocation with two of his students are mentioned in the Chinese Buddhist canon seems to back up that claim, also the historical timeline of the Shaolin temple, points to the only reason it did not get closed with the rest of the temple's as Buddhism was out of favour with the Emperor, is because of Xuanzang's the Chinese monk was kept as a foreign diplomat in cort due to his extensive knowledge of Indian Buddhism, as history shows that Taoism was now in favour.
Here is a exert from one western reference
One of the most recently invented and familiar of the Shaolin historical narratives is a story that claims that the Indian monk Bodhidharma, the supposed founder of Chinese Chan (Zen) Buddhism, introduced boxing into the monastery as a form of exercise around a.d. 525.
This story first appeared in a popular novel, The Travels of Lao T'san, published as a series in a literary magazine in 1907. This story was quickly picked up by others and spread rapidly through publication in a popular contemporary boxing manual, Secrets of Shaolin Boxing Methods, and the first Chinese physical culture history published in 1919. As a result, it has enjoyed vast oral circulation and is one of the most "sacred" of the narratives shared within Chinese and Chinese-derived martial arts. That this story is clearly a twentieth-century invention
12]Henning, Stan; Green, Tom (2001). "Folklore in the Martial Arts". In Green, Thomas A. (ed.). Martial Arts of the World: An Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO.
So I think we have a lot to maybe talk about. And if you could answer this for me what is with everything Linking back to India for you and the others ?
i see that you have added more to the lead, you can't have a link that goes no where in the lead. It is just not done on wiki. I think also that you are still talking like be is a real historical person. As you are mislead so to will others. Although he is a historical comic book personality has credit. And should be highlighted at the very beginning Foristslow (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua, not nice on the tea house that conversation was for me to get better as a editor not for cheap shots. Can you please keep it to the talk as you have suggested, I genuinely would like to get to the bottom of this as I see some big errors in historical records, maybe I am reading into it, but is unusual. Thanks Foristslow (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Asking page protection for a page where your edits are recognised for what they are is below standard; adding personal attacks to it even lower. You do indeed need to improve your editing skills; as they are now, they are insufficient. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!05:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i have already asked for page protection also, please I am trying to work with you. Reflecting back to me with my words is corrosive speech and will not resolve this as you attacked me in a public forum at the tee house when I was asking for guidance to become a better editor. Can we move on, Thanks and regards Foristslow (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is it about the caste of Jagadguru Adi Shankaracharya that you do not accept any scriptures before 1947 as evidence. All the Puranas of India were written before the emperor's rule and many of them have been accepted by Wikipedia as evidence. Then why is Alfred Edward Robert's book Vishwakarma and his decadence written in 1904 hesitant to accept as evidence. All the books written in the modern era are meant to protect the systematic interests of the writers themselves. How can these become history. Wikipedia should not support such distorted histories. Most of the histories of India have been honestly written by the British who ruled India. A brother with the belief that Wikipedia will rewrite Adi Shankar's caste. 2409:4073:114:CAD4:EE0B:E647:C8D0:DCA2 (talk) 14:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Maurya Empire. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
So basically, one of your sources for the hole map "Archaeology of South Asia", that book doesn't contain any maps with holes but rather a map without holes.
As respecting copyright rules of wiki, I did not directly upload the map here, but rather recreated it.
She mentions it for several empires, but does not mention any places where was autonomous, you have decided these regions either by yourself or by Kulke. Hence they shouldn't be even used as a source JingJongPascal (talk) 05:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like most other ancient Empires are based on their de jure territories, even the Persians (Achaemid) did not receive tributes from the Greater Baluchistan Regions.
Well, i meant, that the network model theory should and shall be applicable to all the ancient empires (this has been mentioned in the source aswell) but i have never seen any such development in Macedon and Persian empires. JingJongPascal (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that’s why I was also extremely confused about why you two are fighting. Edasaf was the one who disrupted the Nanda Empire's religious narrative using your reasoning and speculative additions on another page. Edasaf also randomly attacked Chandragupta Maurya's religion. (The jealousy of the Bhim gang and neo-Buddhists toward Hinduism, Brahmanism, or the Vedic tradition is not hidden.)
The problem is that you attacked the Maurya Empire, which is the only empire Indian Buddhists can somewhat properly relate to. Obviously, Edasaf was going to clash with you. Although the Maurya Empire, before the later years of Ashoka, had nothing to do with asceticism or non-violence. If Chandragupta had been a ascetic, there would have been no Ashoka or his edicts, and no spread of Buddhism. So, be glad that Chandragupta was not an extreme Jain ascetic and chose to take a wife.
And don’t be overly uplifted by Edasaf's views on Hinduism. He is in your category, just Indian as well, so he will be offended if you attack the Maurya Empire. No true follower of vedic tradition would describe any stage of Hinduism’s evolution using a Christian missionary term. Leftists and communists interested in India will, but they are becoming increasingly irrelevant as the trend of leaders around the world shows. Soon academia will be free of Marxist interpretations. It will take time. You wont be there to see it, i might be. 2409:40E3:407F:B092:7199:3821:B1F1:5146 (talk) 09:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope for you it will be a world worth living in... Regarding The problem is that you attacked the Maurya Empire, that's an enlightening comment; the perceptions of Chandragupta seem to be quite different. I found this book, Chandragupta Maurya: The creation of a national hero in India; it seems to delve into the differences of perception you're pointing at. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!13:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm. I'll read it. In any case, I would not elevate anyone to hero status—no one is perfect. When even deities are flawed, humans stand no chance. Although there are many who are considered national heroes—Chandragupta, Ashoka, Samudragupta, Kanishka, Shivaji, Prithviraj, Rana Sanga, Veer Savarkar, Bhagat Singh, Mahatma Gandhi, Ambedkar etc.—even Rama, Hanuman, Buddha, Mahavira and Krishna are regarded as national heroes. There are probably countless others. If we want to counter India's national hero narratives, it will take generations. However, I understand why you detest any form of nationalistic tendencies. We can agree to disagree on many things, but I have come to the conclusion that continued hostility is not a solution.
:) I always poke around but Covid really just took a lot away and haven't managed to quite get my head back right. I keep telling myself I want to get back into the mix but just need to start carving out time to read and write. Its still calming to just make my usual tiny edits and watch patterns of users in my unique weird way haha. Always happy to get a chance to send my regards. Kbhatt22 (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: I agree. It read in some aspects like a marketing brochure to begin with but splitting it into two articles seemed like a bizarre stretch the way its written. Couldn't find another Hindu temple that was given such treatment. Had to do a ton of searching around just to understand what the articles were trying to convey. Kbhatt22 (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
disruptive Contents going on article avatar and Dashavatar, Request for page protection and i suggest to you add this file for avatar or dashavatar suitable copyright info uploaded from users.
Whoops! My bad! Based on a wrong-headed skim of A.K. Warder's Indian Buddhism (p.91), I had made an inference that maybe the first factor you were referencing (sampasadhana) was based on Sanskrit parallels while the existing Wikipedia entries were using the Pali texts. But, I now see that sampasadana (without the 'h'; or, in Sanskrit, sa.mprasaada) can be found in 322 different Early Buddhist texts according to Sutta Central (https://suttacentral.net/search?query=in:ebs+sampasada), many -- if not all! -- having to do with the second jhana. So, why do I and other WP contributers not consider sampasadana to be one of the jhana "factors"? Regrettably, it's been a decade since I've dug into this stuff so I don't recall my own sources. And, of course, my knowledge is decimated. I'll keep digging here though and, when I think I find something worthy of your time, I'll write again. (For what it's worth, I initally started the Talk page thread because I was confused by some of your edits to the table. Let's unravel this thing first though :-) [Also, tangentially, I think uppekha is a separate issue. My vague recollection is that term per se was applied to the jhana factors in the Abhidhamma, not in the Sutta Pitaka -- which may not matter here? --, but, my memory's wrong a lot lately.]) If you want to dig together, please let me know :-) Best, Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi [Joshua Jonathan], I noticed you reverted my edit on [Ramayana]. To answer your question: The contents of any religious book of any kind is scrutinized by Modern Scholarship (its historicity) and they put forward their findings. I added that aspect to the article to make it balanced. I believed the information was accurate and properly sourced. Let me know if there’s anything I can clarify. Thanks! Tamir Nazir (talk) 09:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamir Nazir: those two sources are over a century old, and placed in a disjunct section. What purpose does that serve, other than to enrage Hindus? If such characterisations wre to be used, the it should be a subsection on "Genre," which also mentions Itihasa-Purana. Otherwise, it's WP:UNDUE and a violation of WP:NPOV. IP, I hope you're watching too. Regards, Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!09:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JJ, for asking for my input. Itihas-Purana sufficiently covers "mythology." Anything in excess is POV pushing. The sources are severely outdated. By the same logic, mythology should be added against all books claiming things like a human riding a donkey to the moon, a man splitting a river in half, person walking on water etc. Religious pages should strictly follow NPOV. Why unnecessarily enrage just one group? Just because the group doesn’t react by cutting heads? Weak. I leave this to you. I am fed up. 2409:40C1:10BC:AEF:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 10:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine—better than frequent revert wars, which are inevitable. Hindus are accustomed to extra attention, criticism, and scrutiny of their texts anyway, and this has been the case since ancient times, so it's nothing new. My only issue is with the sources, which are too outdated to provide meaningful direction, as well as the lack of commentaries from opposing perspectives. If you can find newer sources, please replace these archaic ones written during the missionary colonial era and add one or two differing viewpoints. I don't know what others will have to say; if they had anything to say, I wouldn’t be wasting my time here. And yes, I know it's futile to suggest doing this for all other religious texts across the world. So, taking my leave now. Good talk! 2409:40C1:10BC:AEF:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 11:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect Tantras has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 7 § Tantras until a consensus is reached. JIP | Talk 19:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Adi Shankara. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anti-Brahminism. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Rolando 1208 continues to remove English pronunciations from articles, despite MOS:LEADPRON and MOS:DUALPRON. The discussion is about the topic User:Rolando 1208. Thank you. Theknightwho (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Template:English translations of the Bhagavad Gita has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
